168 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



had no right to summon his Irish subjects to appear in the Court of Star 

 Chamber, but there were several instances of his doing so. He even called 

 into England cases which had been tried in the Court of Castle Chamber, e.g. 

 Apsley v. Coppinger. On the other hand, he sometimes sent over petitions 

 he had received to this Court to decide the issue there. He also in some cases 

 ordered the Irish Court to alter its sentence or remit fines inflicted by it. 

 In the ease of Blundell v. L'Estrange and Smith in 1638, Wentworth com- 

 plained bitterly at being ordered to pardon Smith, who, with L'Estrange, 

 had been convicted in the Court of Castle Chamber; and from his letters to 

 Secretary Windibank we gather that such a procedure was of rather frequent 

 occurrence in his time. It is true that such interference was sometimes 

 even requested at the King's hands. In the case of the Earl of Kildare v. 

 SirB. Digby, the Council, on account of the momentous importance of the 

 issue, implored the King to take it into his own hands ; but this was very 

 different from altering the decision already arrived at by the Castle Chamber. 

 Another case of interference — this time by Parliament — with the jurisdiction 

 of the Irish Court occurred in the case of Stewart and others, being Scots 

 holding land or houses in Ireland, who had refused to take the oath of 

 allegiance, and were fined in the Court of Castle ( 'hamber. Their fine was 

 remitted by the King. Stewart appealed to the English Parliament, who 

 ordered the members of the Court who had convicted Stewart to answer for 

 their action. In a letter of 30th July, 1641, of the Lords Justices and 

 Council to the English Privy Council, they asked the King to drop the 

 matter, as they had confessed their mistake. They added : " It would be 

 dangerous to admit the doctrine contained in the petition, for, if it were 

 admitted, people would be afraid to become Privy Councillors, lest they should 

 be liable to damages for not understanding a case so fully as God might have 

 enabled them to do. The error in practice was bringing such suits before, 

 and trying them in, the Castle Chamber ; but this is an error which has been 

 made continuously for a century." On a former occasion the Privy Council 

 of England had been very careful not to lessen the prestige of the Irish 

 Court. In 1588, when Henry Eyland, late Sheriff of Boscommon, petitioned 

 the former against a decree of the Castle Chamber, it referred t,he matter back 

 to the Council in Ireland for re-consideration, " which re-examynacion and 

 that which was further thereuppon by them to be don, their Lordships 

 thought meet should be don at the Councell Borde and not in the Starr 

 Chamber, because y' could not in their opinion stand with the honour and 

 reputacion of any soche Court of Justice after a judgment given in the same 

 Court to have y l re-examyned and altered." 



From the above account of this Court it will be seen that it was in effect 



